In your case its only what the Georgia law says.
Actually, not all promises, especially verbal ones are not binding by law everywhere.
But you’re not doing too well at making my argument look irrelevant when you have responded to me in arguing on a personal and not legal base such as I have.
So for you to say that you dont see relevence in my arguement is disengenuous and a childish game. Grow up.

You say my argument is irrelevent and then you turn around and give relevence to Charlenes argument by answering her on the subject of promises which I brought up twice myself.

My argument is solid and as big as day. And that argument is that this never should of seen a courtroom. That position is based on my belief that this woman is either an idiot or a thief.

My argument is similar to Charlenes, Gayleas and those who left comments under the story that you linked us to.

No matter how much you side with the law on this it seems that the majority of us out there and here on this thread feel this was a hustle and a bad decision by the court.

The article you linked us to has comments below.
Now sisnce this is a newspaper column and not a blog you can be assured that the comments are not coming from a pre selected view or bias that is leaning one way.
I’ll assume that the papers redership is a nuetral balnce of opinions.
Interestingly enough, even the readers of the paper feel much the way Charlene,Gayleas and myself do.
————————————————————————————-
“Um - desperate much?? :-/

————————————————————————————-
“Take some personal responsibility for your bad decision. Think things through, other people should not have to pay for your poor choices.”
————————————————————————————-
“Sounds to me like the women we’re supposed to feel so sorry for was maybe looking for a sugar daddy instead of a marriage. Maybe the guy figured this out in time and cut out before he got in too far? Hey, you never know. It’s not ALWAYS the guy’s fault you know, and there are two sides to each story. No self-respecting woman would drop her life to leave for a guy like that. There must have been $$$ signs in her eyes.”
————————————————————————————-
“Good thing we have pictures of this lady, so men can recognize her and run the other way when they see her coming. What a gold digger.”
————————————————————————————–
“The moral of this story; when the writing is on the wall, make decisions with your head and not your heart!!”
————————————————————————————-
“This woman is a scam artist. She was setting him up to pay for her debt. I have zero sympathy for her. She chose to quit her job and move. He in return paid off her debt. Then she says she has more debt for him to pay right before the wedding. He bought her trips, an outrageous ring, and paid $30K of HER debt. He should sue her for all of the things he paid her for!! I can’t believe this even went through the court system. That lady deserves nothing”
————————————————————————————-
“Im just surprised it took him the length of time it did to walk away from this bitter troll. YUCK!!!
————————————————————————————-
Yet another reason why many men view women with such contempt. He should file bankruptcy immediately and use every means necessary to pay her not one thin dime.”
————————————————————————————–

So you see Jersey, out of 10 comments 8 of them agree with Charlene, Gaylea and myself.

That my good man is relevent to the fact that what the people feel is not what some liberal entitlement minded judge and jury feels.

And when the people speak loud enough in a majority then laws get changed. And that is why we are doing on this thread what we are doing.
Who knows, this could all lead to the people of Georgia petitioning the government and courts to change the law.

So , quality legal argument or not our arguments are relevent Mr McJones.

Charlene, “promises” have legal weight. Know your own countries law.

JMJ

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The law in most instances exists to protect people from fraud, NOT from their own stupidity. We have a responsibility to exercise due diligence to protect ourselves. His actions were rude and chickenspit, but not illegal.

She’s lucky to be rid of the creep before the vows. The most that he should be on the hook for, is the cost of the invitations and deposits for the caterers, photographer, flowers, etc. (The dress can be returned.)

She’s lucky I wasn’t on that jury. My vote would be for her to give back the ring and apply the $30,000 he’d already given her to the expenses already incurred for the wedding. After all, he was hardly responsible for her prior debts.

Women like her negate everything that other women have fought for. The first time I married was at age 18. (The age of maximum stupidity.)

I didn’t have a pit to hiss in and neither did he. Way back then, I found out that divorced women could NOT get any kind of credit. We were considered too unstable. Finding a job had its problems too. Divorced? Too unstable and will leave as soon as husband is found. Wives will object to having predatory divorcees prowling around office, etc.

That’s just a little hint of where we’ve come from. Now here she comes and wants daddy judge to save her from her own stupidity. No way would I give up an $80,000/year job until after the honeymoon. (If then.) Especially if the jerk had to have an ultimatum to propose. I don’t know how long she had been with this guy, but she should have taken the time to learn a lot more about his character before putting her livlihood into his hands.

So, neither one of us could make a quality legal argument.

Also because we don’t know the value of the ring, which it does not say in the article either , you and I could not determine if the award was sufficient to cover her loss.

Once again, this would prevent you and I from making a quality legal argument.

JMJ;
“Again though, I don’t know what the legal implications of engagement are in GA and really couldn’t imagine wasting my time looking them up.”

This also would prevent you from making a quality legal argument.

So, as I stated in the first two lines in my first comment on this;
“Yea, so she gives the ring back and this “verbal contract” is canceled.
I think an engagement basically says “we have to maintain the person we represent between now and the time we get married”

I was talking from my perspective and opinion to which you answered “it doesn’t matter what I think.”

Now to the point.
Why doesn’t it matter what we think when its evident from the beginning of the thread neither one of us knew what all the facts were so how could we even have a conversation on the merits of the law in Georgia ?

At that point all we are left with to discuss this subject would be opinionated material.
Which you did not hesitate to contribute by saying;

JMJ;
This guy got what he deserved”

JMJ;
“Misogynistic cons. Typical.”

JMJ;
” Now I know why I have such a strong disregard for conservative judges. You guys just don’t see big pictures, let alone dispassionate interpretation of law!”

JMJ;
“And Gaylea, it’s easy to bash lawyers and litigation - until one day you need to file suit. Then you’d thank you’re lucky stars we live in a country where people are as free to sue as be sued. ”

(which was an untrue accusation that you didnt apologize for)

So , as you can see you are just ripe with opinion but when others come in with their opinion you chicken out of the conversation because morally you don’t agree with us and then fall back on some weasely position that asks me if I have a quality legal argument here.

Nobody said anything derogatory or even slightly abrasive to you and yet you unleashed a little nastiness, snobbery and arrogance on us by calling us misogynist, saying we need to see bigger pictures along with this statement that just wreaks of conceit and BS so bad you can smell it from where I’m at

“You guys just don’t see big pictures, let alone dispassionate interpretation of law!”

Oh ! So now you’re a lawyer too ?
You are able to interpret the law in Georgia that you know nothing about dispassionately ????

Once again Jersey.
I invited you to take things up a notch a few days ago and asked that we both grow up and stop with the dumb exchanges.
as much as I’ve tried a few times already it doesn’t seem like you’re ready.

Sorry Eric, I’m taking the liberty of speaking on your blogs behalf.

People on this thread should be able to speak their feelings, thoughts and opinions without being subjected to your arrogant condescending crap as if none of that matters and you are so much smarter than them because we choose not to take the conversation in the direction and manner you would like it to.

Which really doesn’t make any sense.
you’re asking if I can make a quality legal argument and yet neither can you because you are no more a lawyer than anyone else on the thread or me.

As a person it would of been nice to know what your feelings on the matter were. Even though I will guess that those feelings would of come from a feminists point of view.
At least it would of been in line with what the blog was intended to do.

Aloha

Erics post might give you a hint as to the direction things were going.
It was written with the context of our percieved rights and wrongs and how wee see the situation.
He didnt go into the legalities.
And you your self said you dont know georgia law so I hardly see how you could put up a decent argument.

Do you call this a good legal arguement ?

“And Micky, if you were that woman, and you were as slighted as she, you’d be as litigiously inclined as her, I’m sure, if you could. Imagine, you leave a good job, leave your debts and obligations to some schmuck who promises to satisfy those obligations, and then find yourself without any recourse but for the law to satisfy those obligations! What the heck could you do???”

JMJ

How was she slighted ? Because shes ugly ?
Thats all I can think of becuse it seems the guy treated her pretty good untill he had to find out the hard way that all he was marrying was a stack of bills
I am not that woman.
I wouldnt be so stupid so as to quit my job if I was in as much debt as her and had to have my fiance` paying off my debt.

Shes either an idiot or a hustler.

There you go again, calling people names. saying that we dislike women just because we see injustice.
Its beggining to look like trying to bring things up a level with you is proving me to look like a fool.

Can I sue you ?
I had such high expectations !

Again, this is WRONG. Engagement in many states and jurisdictions DOES have legal implications. Where the heck have you all been???

I’m sorry guys, but I’m beginning to think that you conservatives don’t have the slightest understanding of US law.

And Micky, if you were that woman, and you were as slighted as she, you’d be as litigiously inclined as her, I’m sure, if you could. Imagine, you leave a good job, leave your debts and obligations to some schmuck who promises to satisfy those obligations, and then find yourself without any recourse but for the law to satisfy those obligations! What the heck could you do???

Misogynistic cons. Typical.

JMJ

All I see is entitlement mentallity.

if he bails on the wedding thats different. but thats all he should pay for and out of common decency should let her keep the ring.

She was in debt and he paid a 30,000.00 bill for her so I dont know how great her job could of been.

I see nothing in the article that says he orally promised to pay for anything.
————————————————————————————–

“Shell argued her fiance’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. ”

Oh really ???
This broad needs to get out more often
————————————————————————————–

“He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding .

Oh my god !
Its only obvious that he didnt know about all this debt before !
It looks more to me like she quit her job in anticipation of him clearing all her debt once they were married !
————————————————————————————-

This adds up to her being nothing more than a mooching griffter who got caught.

(shes kinda urguly too)

And by the way, about Gaylea.
She said nothing about lawyers , nor did she bash them.
And she did not bash litigation or the system either. all she said was that the jury should be ashamed of themselves.

Really man, come on, that was way way off.

Formerly it was a religious contract that the state decided to recognize (and control.)

Marriages were arranged by the family (mostly fathers.) That has changed, in the western world - not in the islamic world.

Once women couldn’t own property. It was the husbands who had control of all marital assets. That has changed, again more in the west than in islam.

Customs here have evolved to the point that an engagement doesn’t have the force of law. The ring was a symbol of the contract, and remained the property of the man until the marriage. It becomes the property of the woman when the marriage becomes valid. (Sanctioned by the state.)

Things become muddier in this age where women not only have the right to their own property, but may spend many years accumulating property (and/or debt) before marriage. Women also lack the enforcement ability that a family arrangement of the match would give. When we decided to marry for love/lust instead of because daddy said so, we gave that up (or should have.)

These days any woman who decides to marry a man who is reluctant and gives up her hard-won independent income should do it with her eyes open and remember that the courts are NOT daddy.

I wish the courts would also remember that they are not daddy or nanny and that adults have the responsibility to do their homework before entering into life-changing contracts. There is way to much meddling and social tinkering done in the courts, and social mores should evolve naturally and slowly - not with the stroke of a pen by some guy who thinks he knows better than 4,000 years of history.